Regression Trees and Classification Trees
Yifei Sun
# for data
library(ISLR)
library(mlbench)
# for comparison
library(caret)
library(rpart) #implement CART algorithm (classification, regression tree)
library(rpart.plot) # for tree diagram
library(party) #conditional inference tree CIT, no pruning needed
library(partykit) # useful for visualization of tree diagram
library(plotmo)
library(pROC)
#to fit random forest models
library(randomForest)
library(ranger) # fast implementation of the random forest, for larger sample size
library(pdp)
library(gbm)Regression Trees
Predict a baseball player’s salary on the basis of various statistics associated with performance in the previous year. Use ?Hitters for more details.
data(Hitters)
Hitters <- na.omit(Hitters) #these methods cannot handle missing data so omit na for now
set.seed(2021)
trRows <- createDataPartition(Hitters$Salary,
p = .75,
list = F)The CART approach
We first apply the regression tree method to the Hitters data. cp is the complexity parameter. The default value for cp is 0.01. Sometimes the default value may over prune the tree. rpart package does 10-fold CV for you. cp = 0 => most complex tree.
Objective function: R(T) + \(\alpha\)|T| where R(T) = loss function. rpart use slightly different function of objective function: R(T) + cp|T|R(T_root).
set.seed(1)
tree1 <- rpart(formula = Salary ~ . ,
data = Hitters,
subset = trRows, #to indicate we're using training data
control = rpart.control(cp = 0)) # to make sure we dont miss anything set cp as small as possible
# If any split does not increase R-squared by cp => we don't consider that split
# cp = 1 => no split (bc 1 is the largest value of R-squared)
# cp = 0 => large tree (no pruning)
# arguments: minsplit (default = 20), minsbucket (minsplit/3): when to stop. n-min obs in each terminal node. Only change if have a large dataset where these values seem too small. maxdepth = 30 by default (reasonably large so no need to change)
# plot(tree1)
# text(tree1)
rpart.plot(tree1) #get a large tree WITHOUT PRUNING (cp = 0, according to specified cp). This is NOT the final tree. Yield mean of y on each nodes. 
We get a smaller tree by increasing the complexity parameter.
# just for illustration, don't use this
set.seed(1)
tree2 <- rpart(Salary ~ . ,
data = Hitters, subset = trRows,
control = rpart.control(cp = 0.1))
rpart.plot(tree2)
Pruning
We next apply cost complexity pruning to obtain a tree with the right size. The functions printcp() and plotcp() give the set of possible cost-complexity prunings of a tree from a nested set. For the geometric means of the intervals of values of cp for which a pruning is optimal, a cross-validation has been done in the initial construction by rpart().
The cptable in the fit contains the mean and standard deviation of the errors in the cross-validated prediction against each of the geometric means, and these are plotted by plotcp(). Rel error (relative error) is \(1 – R^2\). The x-error is the cross-validation error generated by built-in cross validation. A good choice of cp for pruning is often the leftmost value for which the mean lies below the horizontal line.
printcp(tree1) #variables used in tree construction are usually important##
## Regression tree:
## rpart(formula = Salary ~ ., data = Hitters, subset = trRows,
## control = rpart.control(cp = 0))
##
## Variables actually used in tree construction:
## [1] Assists AtBat CHits CRBI CRuns CWalks Walks Years
##
## Root node error: 39912455/200 = 199562
##
## n= 200
##
## CP nsplit rel error xerror xstd
## 1 0.38192590 0 1.00000 1.01246 0.15599
## 2 0.12805512 1 0.61807 0.71544 0.13636
## 3 0.06250035 2 0.49002 0.60987 0.11431
## 4 0.03215783 3 0.42752 0.62652 0.11953
## 5 0.02075481 4 0.39536 0.64304 0.11992
## 6 0.01897401 5 0.37461 0.67643 0.12001
## 7 0.01378337 6 0.35563 0.67016 0.12223
## 8 0.00690975 7 0.34185 0.64575 0.12195
## 9 0.00561556 8 0.33494 0.65010 0.12252
## 10 0.00414395 9 0.32932 0.65090 0.12242
## 11 0.00401868 10 0.32518 0.65060 0.12248
## 12 0.00245210 11 0.32116 0.65378 0.12251
## 13 0.00233886 12 0.31871 0.64156 0.11732
## 14 0.00034311 13 0.31637 0.64435 0.11740
## 15 0.00013069 14 0.31603 0.64479 0.11740
## 16 0.00000000 15 0.31590 0.64461 0.11740# number of terminal nodes = nsplit + 1
# pick one with the smallest error
cpTable <- tree1$cptable
# nsplit = size of tree - 1 (nsplits = 1 => size of tree/terminal nodes = 2)
# root node error = RSS/n
# xerror = cross-validation error **use this to select size of tree based on smallest xerror**
plotcp(tree1)
Prune the tree based on the cp table.
# minimum cross-validation error
minErr <- which.min(cpTable[,4]) #extract smallest cp table according to xerror (4th column)
tree3 <- prune(tree1, cp = cpTable[minErr,1]) #final tree
rpart.plot(tree3)
plot(as.party(tree3)) #boxplot show the distribution of the data
summary(tree3)## Call:
## rpart(formula = Salary ~ ., data = Hitters, subset = trRows,
## control = rpart.control(cp = 0))
## n= 200
##
## CP nsplit rel error xerror xstd
## 1 0.38192590 0 1.0000000 1.0124567 0.1559889
## 2 0.12805512 1 0.6180741 0.7154425 0.1363587
## 3 0.06250035 2 0.4900190 0.6098656 0.1143107
##
## Variable importance
## CRBI CAtBat CHits CRuns CHmRun CWalks Walks Runs PutOuts Hits
## 18 16 16 14 14 13 6 2 1 1
##
## Node number 1: 200 observations, complexity param=0.3819259
## mean=535.4117, MSE=199562.3
## left son=2 (124 obs) right son=3 (76 obs)
## Primary splits:
## CRBI < 307.5 to the left, improve=0.3819259, (0 missing)
## CHits < 450 to the left, improve=0.3792192, (0 missing)
## CRuns < 218.5 to the left, improve=0.3735094, (0 missing)
## CAtBat < 1929.5 to the left, improve=0.3726771, (0 missing)
## CWalks < 216 to the left, improve=0.3330730, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## CAtBat < 2316.5 to the left, agree=0.95, adj=0.868, (0 split)
## CHits < 669 to the left, agree=0.95, adj=0.868, (0 split)
## CRuns < 301 to the left, agree=0.92, adj=0.789, (0 split)
## CHmRun < 54.5 to the left, agree=0.90, adj=0.737, (0 split)
## CWalks < 216 to the left, agree=0.90, adj=0.737, (0 split)
##
## Node number 2: 124 observations
## mean=319.2769, MSE=72904.09
##
## Node number 3: 76 observations, complexity param=0.1280551
## mean=888.0527, MSE=205641.4
## left son=6 (59 obs) right son=7 (17 obs)
## Primary splits:
## Walks < 68.5 to the left, improve=0.3270252, (0 missing)
## AtBat < 424 to the left, improve=0.2172819, (0 missing)
## Hits < 123.5 to the left, improve=0.2106275, (0 missing)
## Runs < 55 to the left, improve=0.2010831, (0 missing)
## PutOuts < 809 to the left, improve=0.1887649, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## Runs < 84.5 to the left, agree=0.842, adj=0.294, (0 split)
## PutOuts < 1171 to the left, agree=0.816, adj=0.176, (0 split)
## Hits < 184.5 to the left, agree=0.803, adj=0.118, (0 split)
## AtBat < 603.5 to the left, agree=0.789, adj=0.059, (0 split)
## CHmRun < 273 to the left, agree=0.789, adj=0.059, (0 split)
##
## Node number 6: 59 observations
## mean=748.8511, MSE=98543.27
##
## Node number 7: 17 observations
## mean=1371.164, MSE=276688.3# 2 types of splits: primary splits and surrogate splits
## primary splits
## surrogate splits is used when data contain missing values in predictors.
# variable importance: provide some insights but cannot make conclusion base on this.
# 2x2 table
with(Hitters[trRows,], table(cut(CRBI, c(-Inf, 307.5, Inf)), #primary
cut(CAtBat, c(-Inf, 2316.5, Inf)))) #surrogate##
## (-Inf,2.32e+03] (2.32e+03, Inf]
## (-Inf,308] 114 10
## (308, Inf] 0 76# 1SE rule
tree4 <- prune(tree1,
cp = cpTable[cpTable[,4]<cpTable[minErr,4]+cpTable[minErr,5],1][1])
rpart.plot(tree4)
Finally, the function predict() can be used for prediction from a fitted rpart object.
predict(tree3, newdata = Hitters[-trRows,])## -Andres Galarraga -Buddy Bell -Bob Brenly -Bob Melvin
## 319.2769 1371.1643 319.2769 319.2769
## -BillyJo Robidoux -Chris Bando -Carmen Castillo -Chili Davis
## 319.2769 319.2769 319.2769 1371.1643
## -Curt Ford -Chet Lemon -Candy Maldonado -Craig Reynolds
## 319.2769 748.8511 319.2769 748.8511
## -Cory Snyder -Dave Concepcion -Don Mattingly -Dwayne Murphy
## 319.2769 748.8511 748.8511 748.8511
## -Darryl Strawberry -George Bell -Glenn Braggs -Glenn Davis
## 1371.1643 748.8511 319.2769 319.2769
## -Greg Gagne -Gary Matthews -Gary Redus -Garry Templeton
## 319.2769 748.8511 319.2769 748.8511
## -Hal McRae -Herm Winningham -Juan Beniquez -John Cangelosi
## 748.8511 319.2769 748.8511 319.2769
## -Jack Clark -Jose Cruz -Jim Dwyer -John Kruk
## 748.8511 748.8511 319.2769 319.2769
## -Jeffrey Leonard -Jim Rice -Jerry Royster -Joel Youngblood
## 748.8511 748.8511 748.8511 748.8511
## -Kent Hrbek -Ken Oberkfell -Leon Durham -Lance Parrish
## 1371.1643 319.2769 748.8511 748.8511
## -Marty Barrett -Mickey Tettleton -Ozzie Virgil -Pete Incaviglia
## 319.2769 319.2769 319.2769 319.2769
## -Paul Molitor -Pat Tabler -Rick Burleson -Ron Hassey
## 748.8511 319.2769 748.8511 748.8511
## -Ray Knight -Rick Manning -Rey Quinones -Rafael Ramirez
## 748.8511 748.8511 319.2769 319.2769
## -Ron Roenicke -Robby Thompson -Sid Bream -Tony Bernazard
## 319.2769 319.2769 319.2769 748.8511
## -Tom Foley -Tommy Herr -Tony Phillips -Ted Simmons
## 319.2769 1371.1643 319.2769 748.8511
## -Wally Joyner -Wayne Tolleson -Willie Wilson
## 319.2769 319.2769 748.8511Missing data
Hitters2 <- Hitters
Hitters2$CRBI[sample(1:nrow(Hitters2), 50)] <- NA #randomly select 50 obs and randomly assign CRBI values as NA
set.seed(1)
tree_m <- rpart(Salary ~ . ,
data = Hitters2,
subset = trRows,
control = rpart.control(cp = 0))
cpTable_m <- tree_m$cptable
tree2_m <- prune(tree_m, cp = cpTable_m[which.min(cpTable_m[,4]),1])
summary(tree_m, cp = cpTable_m[which.min(cpTable_m[,4]),1])## Call:
## rpart(formula = Salary ~ ., data = Hitters2, subset = trRows,
## control = rpart.control(cp = 0))
## n= 200
##
## CP nsplit rel error xerror xstd
## 1 0.3792191672 0 1.0000000 1.0124567 0.1559889
## 2 0.1346129886 1 0.6207808 0.7051947 0.1375911
## 3 0.0466533613 2 0.4861678 0.6162435 0.1162865
## 4 0.0406985313 3 0.4395145 0.7006591 0.1228920
## 5 0.0230367844 4 0.3988160 0.6979655 0.1221345
## 6 0.0184611980 5 0.3757792 0.7157471 0.1214443
## 7 0.0176141868 6 0.3573180 0.7245008 0.1213859
## 8 0.0151385132 7 0.3397038 0.7174090 0.1235906
## 9 0.0058500417 8 0.3245653 0.6932186 0.1236323
## 10 0.0045489952 9 0.3187152 0.6969256 0.1237107
## 11 0.0038721016 10 0.3141662 0.6936291 0.1235962
## 12 0.0018360746 11 0.3102941 0.6849839 0.1236191
## 13 0.0006536496 12 0.3084581 0.6812802 0.1192290
## 14 0.0003431087 13 0.3078044 0.6809116 0.1192366
## 15 0.0001055580 14 0.3074613 0.6808523 0.1192365
## 16 0.0000000000 15 0.3073557 0.6807566 0.1192392
##
## Variable importance
## CAtBat CHits CRuns CWalks Years CHmRun Walks Runs Hits AtBat
## 16 16 15 14 11 10 6 3 3 3
## PutOuts RBI
## 2 1
##
## Node number 1: 200 observations, complexity param=0.3792192
## mean=535.4117, MSE=199562.3
## left son=2 (91 obs) right son=3 (109 obs)
## Primary splits:
## CHits < 450 to the left, improve=0.3792192, (0 missing)
## CRuns < 218.5 to the left, improve=0.3735094, (0 missing)
## CAtBat < 1929.5 to the left, improve=0.3726771, (0 missing)
## CWalks < 216 to the left, improve=0.3330730, (0 missing)
## CRBI < 310 to the left, improve=0.3230103, (35 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## CAtBat < 1537 to the left, agree=0.975, adj=0.945, (0 split)
## CRuns < 210.5 to the left, agree=0.965, adj=0.923, (0 split)
## CWalks < 131 to the left, agree=0.910, adj=0.802, (0 split)
## Years < 5.5 to the left, agree=0.860, adj=0.692, (0 split)
## CHmRun < 31.5 to the left, agree=0.830, adj=0.626, (0 split)
##
## Node number 2: 91 observations
## mean=234.3352, MSE=58560.08
##
## Node number 3: 109 observations, complexity param=0.134613
## mean=786.7692, MSE=178421.3
## left son=6 (86 obs) right son=7 (23 obs)
## Primary splits:
## Walks < 67 to the left, improve=0.2762627, (0 missing)
## AtBat < 426.5 to the left, improve=0.2124849, (0 missing)
## RBI < 59.5 to the left, improve=0.1941918, (0 missing)
## Hits < 124.5 to the left, improve=0.1932516, (0 missing)
## CHmRun < 102.5 to the left, improve=0.1766360, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## Runs < 83.5 to the left, agree=0.826, adj=0.174, (0 split)
## CWalks < 687.5 to the left, agree=0.817, adj=0.130, (0 split)
## PutOuts < 1171 to the left, agree=0.817, adj=0.130, (0 split)
## CAtBat < 1635 to the right, agree=0.807, adj=0.087, (0 split)
## CHmRun < 273 to the left, agree=0.798, adj=0.043, (0 split)
##
## Node number 6: 86 observations
## mean=671.954, MSE=86244.51
##
## Node number 7: 23 observations, complexity param=0.04665336
## mean=1216.078, MSE=289485.1head(predict(tree2_m, newdata = Hitters2[-trRows,]))## -Andres Galarraga -Buddy Bell -Bob Brenly -Bob Melvin
## 234.3352 1216.0780 1216.0780 234.3352
## -BillyJo Robidoux -Chris Bando
## 234.3352 234.3352Conditional inference trees (CIT)
The implementation utilizes a unified framework for conditional inference, or permutation tests. Unlike CART, the stopping criterion is based on p-values. A split is implemented when (1 - p-value) exceeds the value given by mincriterion as specified in ctree_control(). This approach ensures that the right-sized tree is grown without additional pruning or cross-validation, but can stop early. At each step, the splitting variable is selected as the input variable with strongest association to the response (measured by a p-value corresponding to a test for the partial null hypothesis of a single input variable and the response). Such a splitting procedure can avoid a variable selection bias towards predictors with many possible cutpoints. :
tree5 <- ctree(Salary ~ . , Hitters,
subset = trRows)
plot(tree5)
Note that tree5 is a party object. The function predict() can be used for prediction from a fitted party object.
head(predict(tree5, newdata = Hitters[-trRows,]))## -Andres Galarraga -Buddy Bell -Bob Brenly -Bob Melvin
## 229.2093 1371.1643 523.1141 229.2093
## -BillyJo Robidoux -Chris Bando
## 229.2093 229.2093caret
ctrl <- trainControl(method = "cv")
set.seed(1)
rpart.fit <- train(Salary ~ . ,
Hitters[trRows,],
method = "rpart",
tuneGrid = data.frame(cp = exp(seq(-6,-2, length = 50))),
trControl = ctrl)
ggplot(rpart.fit, highlight = TRUE) #diamond shape is the chosen cp
rpart.plot(rpart.fit$finalModel)
We can also fit a conditional inference tree model. The tuning parameter is mincriterion.
set.seed(1)
ctree.fit <- train(Salary ~ . ,
Hitters[trRows,],
method = "ctree",
tuneGrid = data.frame(mincriterion = 1-exp(seq(-6, -2, length = 50))),
trControl = ctrl)
ggplot(ctree.fit, highlight = TRUE)
plot(ctree.fit$finalModel)
Compare the CART and Ctree approach:
summary(resamples(list(rpart.fit, ctree.fit)))##
## Call:
## summary.resamples(object = resamples(list(rpart.fit, ctree.fit)))
##
## Models: Model1, Model2
## Number of resamples: 10
##
## MAE
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## Model1 197.0586 213.6735 253.6719 249.9659 279.2418 319.9003 0
## Model2 132.8015 211.5980 221.4816 229.0189 260.9666 298.8747 0
##
## RMSE
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## Model1 235.4672 284.1624 331.0820 345.6295 357.909 509.5493 0
## Model2 171.9460 274.9534 335.9821 336.7650 373.203 531.4344 0
##
## Rsquared
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## Model1 2.353772e-05 0.3227309 0.4309238 0.4308392 0.6016268 0.7701476 0
## Model2 8.244983e-02 0.3366112 0.5148029 0.4795865 0.6603520 0.8140052 0RMSE(predict(rpart.fit, newdata = Hitters[-trRows,]), Hitters$Salary[-trRows]) #smaller RMSE## [1] 389.4528RMSE(predict(ctree.fit, newdata = Hitters[-trRows,]), Hitters$Salary[-trRows])## [1] 346.8838when compare the mean rpart is worse but median rpart is better, so they are pretty similar. But if you choose base on mean then ctree.
Classification trees
We use the Pima Indians Diabetes Database for illustration. The data contain 768 observations and 9 variables. The outcome is a binary variable diabetes.
data(PimaIndiansDiabetes)
dat <- PimaIndiansDiabetes
dat$diabetes <- factor(dat$diabetes, c("pos", "neg"))
set.seed(1)
rowTrain <- createDataPartition(y = dat$diabetes,
p = 2/3,
list = FALSE)rpart
set.seed(1)
tree1 <- rpart(formula = diabetes ~ . ,
data = dat,
subset = rowTrain,
control = rpart.control(cp = 0))
cpTable <- printcp(tree1)##
## Classification tree:
## rpart(formula = diabetes ~ ., data = dat, subset = rowTrain,
## control = rpart.control(cp = 0))
##
## Variables actually used in tree construction:
## [1] age glucose insulin mass pedigree pressure triceps
##
## Root node error: 179/513 = 0.34893
##
## n= 513
##
## CP nsplit rel error xerror xstd
## 1 0.3184358 0 1.00000 1.00000 0.060310
## 2 0.0335196 1 0.68156 0.70950 0.054611
## 3 0.0223464 5 0.53073 0.64804 0.052931
## 4 0.0167598 6 0.50838 0.66480 0.053408
## 5 0.0111732 7 0.49162 0.66480 0.053408
## 6 0.0093110 10 0.45810 0.64804 0.052931
## 7 0.0083799 13 0.43017 0.64804 0.052931
## 8 0.0018622 15 0.41341 0.67598 0.053719
## 9 0.0000000 18 0.40782 0.66480 0.053408plotcp(tree1)
# minimum cross-validation error; may also use the 1SE rule
minErr <- which.min(cpTable[,4])
tree2 <- prune(tree1, cp = cpTable[minErr,1])
rpart.plot(tree2)
summary(tree2)## Call:
## rpart(formula = diabetes ~ ., data = dat, subset = rowTrain,
## control = rpart.control(cp = 0))
## n= 513
##
## CP nsplit rel error xerror xstd
## 1 0.31843575 0 1.0000000 1.0000000 0.06030982
## 2 0.03351955 1 0.6815642 0.7094972 0.05461146
## 3 0.02234637 5 0.5307263 0.6480447 0.05293130
##
## Variable importance
## glucose age mass pregnant insulin pedigree pressure triceps
## 49 15 10 8 5 5 5 3
##
## Node number 1: 513 observations, complexity param=0.3184358
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.3489279 P(node) =1
## class counts: 179 334
## probabilities: 0.349 0.651
## left son=2 (113 obs) right son=3 (400 obs)
## Primary splits:
## glucose < 143.5 to the right, improve=47.13993, (0 missing)
## age < 28.5 to the right, improve=25.25772, (0 missing)
## mass < 26.45 to the right, improve=24.97639, (0 missing)
## pregnant < 6.5 to the right, improve=18.37466, (0 missing)
## pedigree < 0.7305 to the right, improve=10.54990, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## insulin < 281 to the right, agree=0.793, adj=0.062, (0 split)
## pedigree < 1.756 to the right, agree=0.788, adj=0.035, (0 split)
## pressure < 109 to the right, agree=0.784, adj=0.018, (0 split)
## triceps < 53 to the right, agree=0.784, adj=0.018, (0 split)
## mass < 47.55 to the right, agree=0.782, adj=0.009, (0 split)
##
## Node number 2: 113 observations
## predicted class=pos expected loss=0.2477876 P(node) =0.2202729
## class counts: 85 28
## probabilities: 0.752 0.248
##
## Node number 3: 400 observations, complexity param=0.03351955
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.235 P(node) =0.7797271
## class counts: 94 306
## probabilities: 0.235 0.765
## left son=6 (188 obs) right son=7 (212 obs)
## Primary splits:
## age < 28.5 to the right, improve=16.671870, (0 missing)
## mass < 26.95 to the right, improve=14.292070, (0 missing)
## pregnant < 6.5 to the right, improve=12.341070, (0 missing)
## glucose < 101.5 to the right, improve=11.532000, (0 missing)
## pedigree < 0.731 to the right, improve= 7.224033, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## pregnant < 3.5 to the right, agree=0.802, adj=0.580, (0 split)
## pressure < 71 to the right, agree=0.662, adj=0.282, (0 split)
## insulin < 8 to the left, agree=0.625, adj=0.202, (0 split)
## triceps < 7.5 to the left, agree=0.623, adj=0.197, (0 split)
## glucose < 113.5 to the right, agree=0.615, adj=0.181, (0 split)
##
## Node number 6: 188 observations, complexity param=0.03351955
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.3882979 P(node) =0.3664717
## class counts: 73 115
## probabilities: 0.388 0.612
## left son=12 (148 obs) right son=13 (40 obs)
## Primary splits:
## mass < 26.95 to the right, improve=11.630130, (0 missing)
## glucose < 99.5 to the right, improve= 9.960993, (0 missing)
## insulin < 128 to the right, improve= 4.907038, (0 missing)
## age < 56.5 to the left, improve= 4.407857, (0 missing)
## pedigree < 1.105 to the right, improve= 4.053126, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## age < 66.5 to the left, agree=0.809, adj=0.100, (0 split)
## glucose < 59 to the right, agree=0.793, adj=0.025, (0 split)
##
## Node number 7: 212 observations
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.0990566 P(node) =0.4132554
## class counts: 21 191
## probabilities: 0.099 0.901
##
## Node number 12: 148 observations, complexity param=0.03351955
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.4797297 P(node) =0.288499
## class counts: 71 77
## probabilities: 0.480 0.520
## left son=24 (114 obs) right son=25 (34 obs)
## Primary splits:
## glucose < 99.5 to the right, improve=9.770019, (0 missing)
## pedigree < 0.528 to the right, improve=5.757891, (0 missing)
## insulin < 128 to the right, improve=2.993970, (0 missing)
## age < 56.5 to the left, improve=2.604198, (0 missing)
## pregnant < 6.5 to the right, improve=1.545045, (0 missing)
##
## Node number 13: 40 observations
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.05 P(node) =0.07797271
## class counts: 2 38
## probabilities: 0.050 0.950
##
## Node number 24: 114 observations, complexity param=0.03351955
## predicted class=pos expected loss=0.4210526 P(node) =0.2222222
## class counts: 66 48
## probabilities: 0.579 0.421
## left son=48 (73 obs) right son=49 (41 obs)
## Primary splits:
## pedigree < 0.253 to the right, improve=4.559903, (0 missing)
## age < 56.5 to the left, improve=2.836624, (0 missing)
## pressure < 67 to the left, improve=2.390223, (0 missing)
## glucose < 107.5 to the right, improve=1.601170, (0 missing)
## insulin < 123.5 to the right, improve=1.478613, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## glucose < 135.5 to the left, agree=0.702, adj=0.171, (0 split)
## pressure < 99 to the left, agree=0.667, adj=0.073, (0 split)
## age < 58 to the left, agree=0.658, adj=0.049, (0 split)
##
## Node number 25: 34 observations
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.1470588 P(node) =0.0662768
## class counts: 5 29
## probabilities: 0.147 0.853
##
## Node number 48: 73 observations
## predicted class=pos expected loss=0.3150685 P(node) =0.1423002
## class counts: 50 23
## probabilities: 0.685 0.315
##
## Node number 49: 41 observations
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.3902439 P(node) =0.07992203
## class counts: 16 25
## probabilities: 0.390 0.610#1SE rule
tree3 <- prune(tree1,
cp = cpTable[cpTable[,4]<cpTable[minErr,4]+cpTable[minErr,5],1][1])
plot(tree3)
rpart.plot(tree3)
summary(tree3)## Call:
## rpart(formula = diabetes ~ ., data = dat, subset = rowTrain,
## control = rpart.control(cp = 0))
## n= 513
##
## CP nsplit rel error xerror xstd
## 1 0.31843575 0 1.0000000 1.0000000 0.06030982
## 2 0.03351955 1 0.6815642 0.7094972 0.05461146
## 3 0.02234637 5 0.5307263 0.6480447 0.05293130
##
## Variable importance
## glucose age mass pregnant insulin pedigree pressure triceps
## 49 15 10 8 5 5 5 3
##
## Node number 1: 513 observations, complexity param=0.3184358
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.3489279 P(node) =1
## class counts: 179 334
## probabilities: 0.349 0.651
## left son=2 (113 obs) right son=3 (400 obs)
## Primary splits:
## glucose < 143.5 to the right, improve=47.13993, (0 missing)
## age < 28.5 to the right, improve=25.25772, (0 missing)
## mass < 26.45 to the right, improve=24.97639, (0 missing)
## pregnant < 6.5 to the right, improve=18.37466, (0 missing)
## pedigree < 0.7305 to the right, improve=10.54990, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## insulin < 281 to the right, agree=0.793, adj=0.062, (0 split)
## pedigree < 1.756 to the right, agree=0.788, adj=0.035, (0 split)
## pressure < 109 to the right, agree=0.784, adj=0.018, (0 split)
## triceps < 53 to the right, agree=0.784, adj=0.018, (0 split)
## mass < 47.55 to the right, agree=0.782, adj=0.009, (0 split)
##
## Node number 2: 113 observations
## predicted class=pos expected loss=0.2477876 P(node) =0.2202729
## class counts: 85 28
## probabilities: 0.752 0.248
##
## Node number 3: 400 observations, complexity param=0.03351955
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.235 P(node) =0.7797271
## class counts: 94 306
## probabilities: 0.235 0.765
## left son=6 (188 obs) right son=7 (212 obs)
## Primary splits:
## age < 28.5 to the right, improve=16.671870, (0 missing)
## mass < 26.95 to the right, improve=14.292070, (0 missing)
## pregnant < 6.5 to the right, improve=12.341070, (0 missing)
## glucose < 101.5 to the right, improve=11.532000, (0 missing)
## pedigree < 0.731 to the right, improve= 7.224033, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## pregnant < 3.5 to the right, agree=0.802, adj=0.580, (0 split)
## pressure < 71 to the right, agree=0.662, adj=0.282, (0 split)
## insulin < 8 to the left, agree=0.625, adj=0.202, (0 split)
## triceps < 7.5 to the left, agree=0.623, adj=0.197, (0 split)
## glucose < 113.5 to the right, agree=0.615, adj=0.181, (0 split)
##
## Node number 6: 188 observations, complexity param=0.03351955
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.3882979 P(node) =0.3664717
## class counts: 73 115
## probabilities: 0.388 0.612
## left son=12 (148 obs) right son=13 (40 obs)
## Primary splits:
## mass < 26.95 to the right, improve=11.630130, (0 missing)
## glucose < 99.5 to the right, improve= 9.960993, (0 missing)
## insulin < 128 to the right, improve= 4.907038, (0 missing)
## age < 56.5 to the left, improve= 4.407857, (0 missing)
## pedigree < 1.105 to the right, improve= 4.053126, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## age < 66.5 to the left, agree=0.809, adj=0.100, (0 split)
## glucose < 59 to the right, agree=0.793, adj=0.025, (0 split)
##
## Node number 7: 212 observations
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.0990566 P(node) =0.4132554
## class counts: 21 191
## probabilities: 0.099 0.901
##
## Node number 12: 148 observations, complexity param=0.03351955
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.4797297 P(node) =0.288499
## class counts: 71 77
## probabilities: 0.480 0.520
## left son=24 (114 obs) right son=25 (34 obs)
## Primary splits:
## glucose < 99.5 to the right, improve=9.770019, (0 missing)
## pedigree < 0.528 to the right, improve=5.757891, (0 missing)
## insulin < 128 to the right, improve=2.993970, (0 missing)
## age < 56.5 to the left, improve=2.604198, (0 missing)
## pregnant < 6.5 to the right, improve=1.545045, (0 missing)
##
## Node number 13: 40 observations
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.05 P(node) =0.07797271
## class counts: 2 38
## probabilities: 0.050 0.950
##
## Node number 24: 114 observations, complexity param=0.03351955
## predicted class=pos expected loss=0.4210526 P(node) =0.2222222
## class counts: 66 48
## probabilities: 0.579 0.421
## left son=48 (73 obs) right son=49 (41 obs)
## Primary splits:
## pedigree < 0.253 to the right, improve=4.559903, (0 missing)
## age < 56.5 to the left, improve=2.836624, (0 missing)
## pressure < 67 to the left, improve=2.390223, (0 missing)
## glucose < 107.5 to the right, improve=1.601170, (0 missing)
## insulin < 123.5 to the right, improve=1.478613, (0 missing)
## Surrogate splits:
## glucose < 135.5 to the left, agree=0.702, adj=0.171, (0 split)
## pressure < 99 to the left, agree=0.667, adj=0.073, (0 split)
## age < 58 to the left, agree=0.658, adj=0.049, (0 split)
##
## Node number 25: 34 observations
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.1470588 P(node) =0.0662768
## class counts: 5 29
## probabilities: 0.147 0.853
##
## Node number 48: 73 observations
## predicted class=pos expected loss=0.3150685 P(node) =0.1423002
## class counts: 50 23
## probabilities: 0.685 0.315
##
## Node number 49: 41 observations
## predicted class=neg expected loss=0.3902439 P(node) =0.07992203
## class counts: 16 25
## probabilities: 0.390 0.610ctree
tree2 <- ctree(formula = diabetes ~ . ,
data = dat,
subset = rowTrain) #default setting p value 0.05
plot(tree2)
caret
CART
ctrl <- trainControl(method = "cv",
summaryFunction = twoClassSummary,
classProbs = TRUE)
set.seed(1)
rpart.fit <- train(diabetes ~ . ,
dat,
subset = rowTrain,
method = "rpart",
tuneGrid = data.frame(cp = exp(seq(-6,-3, len = 50))),
trControl = ctrl,
metric = "ROC") #derfault setting Kappa and accuracy
ggplot(rpart.fit, highlight = TRUE)
rpart.plot(rpart.fit$finalModel)
CIT
set.seed(1)
ctree.fit <- train(diabetes ~ . , dat,
subset = rowTrain,
method = "ctree",
tuneGrid = data.frame(mincriterion = 1-exp(seq(-2, -1, length = 50))),
metric = "ROC",
trControl = ctrl)
ggplot(ctree.fit, highlight = TRUE)
#p-value threshold is larger => easier to split, bigger tree
plot(ctree.fit$finalModel)
Compare two models
summary(resamples(list(rpart.fit, ctree.fit)))##
## Call:
## summary.resamples(object = resamples(list(rpart.fit, ctree.fit)))
##
## Models: Model1, Model2
## Number of resamples: 10
##
## ROC
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## Model1 0.6784512 0.7396886 0.7852421 0.7937263 0.8472037 0.9011438 0
## Model2 0.7045455 0.7417929 0.8063478 0.7873018 0.8164983 0.8685121 0
##
## Sens
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## Model1 0.6111111 0.6805556 0.7222222 0.7490196 0.8120915 0.9444444 0
## Model2 0.5000000 0.5833333 0.6944444 0.6767974 0.7638889 0.8235294 0
##
## Spec
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## Model1 0.6363636 0.7112299 0.8333333 0.7869875 0.8518271 0.8823529 0
## Model2 0.6666667 0.7352941 0.7575758 0.7604278 0.7941176 0.8484848 0#2 models very close to each other => can report both of them.Making prediction:
rpart.pred <- predict(tree1, newdata = dat[-rowTrain,])[,1]
rpart.pred2 <- predict(rpart.fit, newdata = dat[-rowTrain,],
type = "prob")[,1]
ctree.pred <- predict(ctree.fit, newdata = dat[-rowTrain,],
type = "prob")[,1]
roc.rpart <- roc(dat$diabetes[-rowTrain], rpart.pred2)## Setting levels: control = pos, case = neg## Setting direction: controls > casesroc.ctree <- roc(dat$diabetes[-rowTrain], ctree.pred)## Setting levels: control = pos, case = neg
## Setting direction: controls > casesauc <- c(roc.rpart$auc[1], roc.ctree$auc[1])
plot(roc.rpart, legacy.axes = TRUE)
plot(roc.ctree, col = 2, add = TRUE)
modelNames <- c("rpart","ctree")
legend("bottomright", legend = paste0(modelNames, ": ", round(auc,3)),
col = 1:2, lwd = 2)
Bagging and Random Forests
The function randomForest() implements Breiman’s random forest algorithm (based on Breiman and cutler’s original Fortran code) for classification and regression. ranger() is a fast implementation of Breiman’s random forests, particularly suited for high dimensional data.
set.seed(1)
bagging <- randomForest(Salary ~ .,
Hitters,
subset = trRows,
mtry = 19) #number of predictors in this eg
# nodesize = min number of nodes, reg 5 class 1 default
set.seed(1)
rf <- randomForest(Salary ~ .,
Hitters,
subset = trRows,
mtry = 6) # in the slides, supposed to perform well
# fast implementation
set.seed(1)
rf2 <- ranger(Salary ~ . ,
Hitters[trRows,],
mtry = 6)
#min.node.size
pred.rf <- predict(rf, newdata = Hitters[-trRows,])
pred.rf2 <- predict(rf2, data = Hitters[-trRows,])$predictions
RMSE(pred.rf, Hitters$Salary[-trRows])## [1] 280.28RMSE(pred.rf2, Hitters$Salary[-trRows]) ## [1] 282.4317Boosting
We first fit a gradient boosting model with Gaussian loss function
set.seed(1)
bst <- gbm(Salary ~ .,
Hitters[trRows,],
distribution = "gaussian",
n.trees = 5000, #beta
interaction.depth = 3, #d
shrinkage = 0.005, #lambda
cv.folds = 10,
n.cores = 2)
#bag.fraction = 0.5 (50% of your data is used to grow tree)We plot loss function as a result of number of trees added to the ensemble
gbm.perf(bst, method = "cv")
## [1] 1555Grid search using caret
We use the fast implementation of random forest when tuning the model.
ctrl <- trainControl(method = "cv")
# Try more if possible
rf.grid <- expand.grid(mtry = 1:19,
splitrule = "variance",
min.node.size = 1:6)
set.seed(1)
rf.fit <- train(Salary ~ . ,
Hitters[trRows,],
method = "ranger",
tuneGrid = rf.grid,
trControl = ctrl)
ggplot(rf.fit, highlight = TRUE)
We then tune the gbm model.
# Try more
gbm.grid <- expand.grid(n.trees = c(2000,3000,4000), #beta
interaction.depth = 1:4, #d
shrinkage = c(0.001,0.003,0.005), #lambda
n.minobsinnode = c(1,10))
set.seed(1)
gbm.fit <- train(Salary ~ . ,
Hitters[trRows,],
method = "gbm",
tuneGrid = gbm.grid,
trControl = ctrl,
verbose = FALSE)
ggplot(gbm.fit, highlight = TRUE)
It takes a while to train the gbm even with a rough tuning grid. The xgboost package provides an efficient implementation of gradient boosting framework (approximately 10x faster than gbm). You can find much useful information here: https://github.com/dmlc/xgboost/tree/master/demo.
Compare the cross-validation performance. You can also compare with other models that we fitted before.
resamp <- resamples(list(rf = rf.fit, gbm = gbm.fit))
summary(resamp)##
## Call:
## summary.resamples(object = resamp)
##
## Models: rf, gbm
## Number of resamples: 10
##
## MAE
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## rf 98.74629 151.8985 161.5200 174.6345 210.0056 229.1887 0
## gbm 112.18116 160.8835 174.8453 173.8899 196.4601 223.2946 0
##
## RMSE
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## rf 149.0397 230.0978 264.7041 274.2023 302.1390 424.2364 0
## gbm 160.6428 217.0298 254.0741 257.4122 273.6228 414.0984 0
##
## Rsquared
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## rf 0.3690611 0.5225075 0.64026 0.6333335 0.7408358 0.8476320 0
## gbm 0.4054759 0.5738089 0.73148 0.6643929 0.7661516 0.8556462 0Global interpretation
Variable importance
We can extract the variable importance from the fitted models. In what follows, the first measure is computed from permuting OOB data. The second measure is the total decrease in node impurities from splitting on the variable, averaged over all trees. For regression, node impurity is measured by residual sum of squares.
set.seed(1)
rf2.final.per <- ranger(Salary ~ . ,
Hitters[trRows,],
mtry = rf.fit$bestTune[[1]],
splitrule = "variance",
min.node.size = rf.fit$bestTune[[3]],
importance = "permutation",
scale.permutation.importance = TRUE)
barplot(sort(ranger::importance(rf2.final.per), decreasing = FALSE),
las = 2, horiz = TRUE, cex.names = 0.7,
col = colorRampPalette(colors = c("cyan","blue"))(19))
set.seed(1)
rf2.final.imp <- ranger(Salary ~ . ,
Hitters[trRows,],
mtry = rf.fit$bestTune[[1]],
splitrule = "variance",
min.node.size = rf.fit$bestTune[[3]],
importance = "impurity")
barplot(sort(ranger::importance(rf2.final.imp), decreasing = FALSE),
las = 2, horiz = TRUE, cex.names = 0.7,
col = colorRampPalette(colors = c("cyan","blue"))(19))
Variable importance from boosting can be obtained using the summary() function.
summary(gbm.fit$finalModel, las = 2, cBars = 19, cex.names = 0.6)
## var rel.inf
## Walks Walks 13.40112263
## Hits Hits 11.14833444
## CHmRun CHmRun 10.24374651
## CRBI CRBI 9.38212292
## CHits CHits 8.53104072
## CRuns CRuns 8.12184366
## PutOuts PutOuts 7.16956645
## AtBat AtBat 7.06299890
## CWalks CWalks 5.97573320
## Years Years 5.10808149
## CAtBat CAtBat 4.94507359
## RBI RBI 2.86161671
## Runs Runs 1.60242284
## HmRun HmRun 1.56861862
## Errors Errors 1.17712846
## Assists Assists 1.08939060
## DivisionW DivisionW 0.30044598
## LeagueN LeagueN 0.21104846
## NewLeagueN NewLeagueN 0.09966381Partial dependence plots
After the most relevant variables have been identified, the next step is to attempt to understand how the response variable changes based on these variables. For this we can use partial dependence plots (PDPs).
PDPs plot the change in the average predicted value as specified feature(s) vary over their marginal distribution. The PDP plot below displays the average change in predicted Salary as we vary CRBI while holding all other variables constant. This is done by holding all variables constant for each observation in our training data set but then apply the unique values of CRBI for each observation. We then average the Salary across all the observations.
p1 <- partial(rf.fit, pred.var = "CRBI",
plot = TRUE, rug = TRUE,
plot.engine = "ggplot") + ggtitle("PDP (RF)")
p2 <- partial(gbm.fit, pred.var = "CRBI",
plot = TRUE, rug = TRUE,
plot.engine = "ggplot") + ggtitle("PDP (GBM)")
grid.arrange(p1, p2, nrow = 1)## Warning: Use of `object[[1L]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[[1L]]` instead.## Warning: Use of `object[["yhat"]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[["yhat"]]`
## instead.## Warning: Use of `x.rug[[1L]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[[1L]]` instead.## Warning: Use of `object[[1L]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[[1L]]` instead.## Warning: Use of `object[["yhat"]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[["yhat"]]`
## instead.## Warning: Use of `x.rug[[1L]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[[1L]]` instead.
Classification
We use the Pima Indians Diabetes Database for illustration. The data contain 768 observations and 9 variables. The outcome is a binary variable diabetes.
data(PimaIndiansDiabetes)
dat <- PimaIndiansDiabetes
dat$diabetes <- factor(dat$diabetes, c("pos", "neg"))
set.seed(1)
rowTrain <- createDataPartition(y = dat$diabetes,
p = 2/3,
list = FALSE)Bagging and random forests
set.seed(1)
bagging <- randomForest(diabetes ~ . ,
dat[rowTrain,],
mtry = 8)
set.seed(1)
rf <- randomForest(diabetes ~ . ,
dat[rowTrain,],
mtry = 3)
set.seed(1)
rf2 <- ranger(diabetes ~ . ,
dat[rowTrain,],
mtry = 3,
probability = TRUE)
rf.pred <- predict(rf, newdata = dat[-rowTrain,], type = "prob")[,1]
rf2.pred <- predict(rf2, data = dat[-rowTrain,], type = "response")$predictions[,1]Boosting
# cannot pass categorical var to gbm => change to numeric first
dat2 <- dat
dat2$diabetes <- as.numeric(dat$diabetes == "pos")
set.seed(1)
bst <- gbm(diabetes ~ . ,
dat2[rowTrain,],
distribution = "adaboost",
n.trees = 2000,
interaction.depth = 2,
shrinkage = 0.005,
cv.folds = 10,
n.cores = 2)
gbm.perf(bst, method = "cv")
## [1] 950Grid search using caret
Random forests
ctrl <- trainControl(method = "cv",
classProbs = TRUE,
summaryFunction = twoClassSummary)
rf.grid <- expand.grid(mtry = 1:8,
splitrule = "gini",
min.node.size = seq(from = 2, to = 10, by = 2))
set.seed(1)
rf.fit <- train(diabetes ~ . ,
dat,
subset = rowTrain,
method = "ranger",
tuneGrid = rf.grid,
metric = "ROC",
trControl = ctrl)
ggplot(rf.fit, highlight = TRUE)
rf.pred <- predict(rf.fit, newdata = dat[-rowTrain,], type = "prob")[,1]AdaBoost
gbmA.grid <- expand.grid(n.trees = c(2000,3000,4000),
interaction.depth = 1:6,
shrinkage = c(0.001,0.003,0.005),
n.minobsinnode = 1)
set.seed(1)
gbmA.fit <- train(diabetes ~ . ,
dat,
subset = rowTrain,
tuneGrid = gbmA.grid,
trControl = ctrl,
method = "gbm",
distribution = "adaboost",
metric = "ROC",
verbose = FALSE)
ggplot(gbmA.fit, highlight = TRUE)
gbmA.pred <- predict(gbmA.fit, newdata = dat[-rowTrain,], type = "prob")[,1]resamp <- resamples(list(rf = rf.fit,
gbmA = gbmA.fit))
summary(resamp)##
## Call:
## summary.resamples(object = resamp)
##
## Models: rf, gbmA
## Number of resamples: 10
##
## ROC
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## rf 0.7946128 0.8307338 0.8451178 0.8680741 0.9048822 0.9636678 0
## gbmA 0.8181818 0.8295083 0.8582393 0.8710901 0.9111953 0.9509804 0
##
## Sens
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## rf 0.5000000 0.6111111 0.6388889 0.6650327 0.7181373 0.8333333 0
## gbmA 0.3888889 0.5555556 0.6111111 0.6261438 0.7181373 0.8888889 0
##
## Spec
## Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. NA's
## rf 0.7272727 0.8308824 0.8939394 0.8709447 0.9318182 0.9705882 0
## gbmA 0.7575758 0.8594029 0.9255793 0.9009804 0.9625668 0.9705882 0Global interpretation
Variable importance
set.seed(1)
rf2.final.per <- ranger(diabetes ~ . ,
dat[rowTrain,],
mtry = rf.fit$bestTune[[1]],
min.node.size = rf.fit$bestTune[[3]],
splitrule = "gini",
importance = "permutation",
scale.permutation.importance = TRUE)
barplot(sort(ranger::importance(rf2.final.per), decreasing = FALSE),
las = 2, horiz = TRUE, cex.names = 0.7,
col = colorRampPalette(colors = c("cyan","blue"))(8))
set.seed(1)
rf2.final.imp <- ranger(diabetes ~ . , dat[rowTrain,],
mtry = rf.fit$bestTune[[1]],
splitrule = "gini",
min.node.size = rf.fit$bestTune[[3]],
importance = "impurity")
barplot(sort(ranger::importance(rf2.final.imp), decreasing = FALSE),
las = 2, horiz = TRUE, cex.names = 0.7,
col = colorRampPalette(colors = c("cyan","blue"))(8))
summary(gbmA.fit$finalModel, las = 2, cBars = 19, cex.names = 0.6)
## var rel.inf
## glucose glucose 38.592321
## mass mass 18.996714
## age age 12.942254
## pedigree pedigree 12.678471
## pregnant pregnant 7.450772
## pressure pressure 4.701505
## triceps triceps 2.406526
## insulin insulin 2.231438PDP
pdp.rf <- rf.fit %>%
partial(pred.var = "glucose",
grid.resolution = 100,
prob = TRUE) %>%
autoplot(rug = TRUE, train = dat[rowTrain,]) +
ggtitle("Random forest")
pdp.gbm <- gbmA.fit %>%
partial(pred.var = "glucose",
grid.resolution = 100,
prob = TRUE) %>%
autoplot(rug = TRUE, train = dat[rowTrain,]) +
ggtitle("Boosting")
grid.arrange(pdp.rf, pdp.gbm, nrow = 1)## Warning: Use of `object[[1L]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[[1L]]` instead.## Warning: Use of `object[["yhat"]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[["yhat"]]`
## instead.## Warning: Use of `x.rug[[1L]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[[1L]]` instead.## Warning: Use of `object[[1L]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[[1L]]` instead.## Warning: Use of `object[["yhat"]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[["yhat"]]`
## instead.## Warning: Use of `x.rug[[1L]]` is discouraged. Use `.data[[1L]]` instead.
roc.rf <- roc(dat$diabetes[-rowTrain], rf.pred)## Setting levels: control = pos, case = neg## Setting direction: controls > casesroc.gbmA <- roc(dat$diabetes[-rowTrain], gbmA.pred)## Setting levels: control = pos, case = neg
## Setting direction: controls > casesplot(roc.rf, col = 1)
plot(roc.gbmA, add = TRUE, col = 2)
auc <- c(roc.rf$auc[1], roc.gbmA$auc[1])
modelNames <- c("RF","Adaboost")
legend("bottomright", legend = paste0(modelNames, ": ", round(auc,3)),
col = 1:2, lwd = 2)